Scott v. Bender

• Decision Date: 21 May 2013
• Docket Number: No. 12 C 2148.,12 C 2148.
• Citation: 948 F.Supp.2d 859
• Parties: James F.H. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. Kelli D. BENDER, et. al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

948 F.Supp.2d 859

James F.H. SCOTT, Plaintiff,

v.Kelli D. BENDER, et. al., Defendants.

No. 12 C 2148.

United States District Court,

N.D. Illinois,

Eastern Division.

May 21, 2013.

James F.H. Scott, Arlington, VA, pro se.

Matthew Paul Barrette, Ryan Arthur Mahoney, Sullivan Hincks & Conway, Oak Brook, IL, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

RUBEN CASTILLO, District Judge.

James F.H. Scott, appearing pro se, brought suit in this Court against Kelli D. Bender alleging malicious prosecution (Count I); false imprisonment (Count II); a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count HI); and breach of contract (Count IV). (R. 6, Am. Compl.) On September 26, 2012, the Court dismissed Scott's complaint for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Scott v. Bender, 893 F.Supp.2d 963 (N.D.Ill.2012). Presently before the Court is Scott's motion to reconsider the Court's prior Memorandum Opinion and Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (R. 20, Pl.'s Mot.) For the reasons set forth herein, Scott's motion is denied.

RELEVANT FACTS

The Court adopts all of the facts as set forth in its previous Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Bender's motion to dismiss. See Scott, 893 F.Supp.2d at 966–69.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On March 23, 2012, Scott commenced this action by filing a complaint against Bender and Frederick P. Flather. (R. 1, Compl.) In his complaint, Scott alleged claims against Bender, his former wife, for malicious prosecution (Count I); false imprisonment (Count II); a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Count III); and breach of contract (Count IV). ( Id.) Against Flather, Scott alleged a claim for tortious interference with contract (Count V). ( Id.) On April 10, 2012, the Court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, citing the absolute or qualified immunity that Flather was entitled to for his actions as an Assistant State's Attorney in DuPage County, Illinois. (R. 5, Min. Entry.) On June 12, 2012, Scott filed an amended complaint alleging the present claims solely against Bender. (R. 6, Am. Compl.)

On August 22, 2012, Bender filed a motion to dismiss Scott's complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as well as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (R. 13, Def.'s Mot.) The Court granted Bender's motion on September 26, 2012. See Scott, 893 F.Supp.2d at 976. The Court held that Scott's § 1983 claim was barred by the statute of limitations, which is two years in Illinois for claims brought pursuant to § 1983. See id. at 972;see also Gomez v. Randle, 680 F.3d 859, 864 (7th Cir.2012). Because Scott's § 1983 claim was his only claim arising under federal law, Scott had to rely on diversity jurisdiction to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court to pursue his other claims. See Scott, 893 F.Supp.2d at 972. However, the Court determined that Scott's remaining claims failed to allege the necessary amount in controversy to confer diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See id. at 973–76. Accordingly, the Court dismissed Scott's complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction. See id. at 976.

On October 15, 2012, Scott filed the instant motion to reconsider pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (R. 20, Pl.'s Mot.) Scott argues that extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant reconsideration of the Court's prior Opinion. ( Id. at 1–2.) He argues that the Court erred when it held that it lacked jurisdiction over his case. ( Id. at 3.) Specifically, Scott argues that the Court erred when it allegedly concluded that: (1) he failed to put forth “any facts or evidence of specific injury”; (2) he failed to allege facts entitling him to punitive damages on his false imprisonment claim; (3) he must prove the entirety of his $300,000 claim for punitive damages on his false imprisonment claim; and (4) he failed to allege facts entitling him to punitive damages on his malicious prosecution claim. ( Id. at 3–4.) Scott argues that the Court misapplied the law when it held that his allegations failed to establish plausible punitive damages in excess of $75,000, the amount necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). ( Id. at 9.)

Bender responded to Scott's motion on November 2, 2012. (R. 23, Def.'s Resp.) Bender argues that no extraordinary circumstances exist which warrant relief under Rule 60(b). ( Id. at 1–3.) She also argues that Scott's motion is an attempt to rehash or relitigate his original arguments, which she claims is improper on a motion to reconsider. ( Id. at 3–5.)

Scott replied to Bender's response on November 13, 2012. (R. 24, Pl.'s Reply.) Scott argues that Bender's “impecunity” is an exceptional circumstance meriting reconsideration under Rule 60(b). ( Id. at 1–2.) He again argues that the Court made manifest errors of law when it held that his allegations did not support plausible punitive damages above $75,000 sufficient to meet the amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction and that therefore he cannot have his case heard before this Court. ( Id. at 2–4.)

LEGAL STANDARD

A “motion to reconsider” does not exist under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Talano v. NW. Med. Faculty Found., 273 F.3d 757, 760 n. 1 (7th Cir.2001). Thus, a motion that seeks to challenge the merits of a ruling by a district court will automatically be considered as having been filed under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Mares v. Busby, 34 F.3d 533, 535 (7th Cir.1994) (“Though the plaintiffs did not file their motion to reconsider pursuant to any one of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the fact that it challenges the merits of the district court's decision means that it must fall under Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b).”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Whether to characterize a motion as arising under Rule 59(e) or 60(b) depends on the nature of the motion. “[I]t is the substance, rather than the form, of a post-judgment motion that determines the rule under which it should be analyzed.” Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir.2008). A Rule 60(b) motion must be brought within a “reasonable time”—and within a year for mistake, newly discovered evidence, or fraud—after the entry of judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(c)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3). Rule 60(b) also contains a catch-all provision granting the court discretion to fashion a remedy for “any other reason that justifies relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6). A Rule 59(e) motion must be “filed no later than 28 days after the entry of the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e).

Scott brings his motion pursuant to Rule 60(b). (R. 20, Pl.'s Mot.) A Rule 60(b) motion is brought for “relief from a final judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Under Rule 60(b), a court may vacate its previous judgment for a variety of reasons including mistake, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, or fraud. Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1), (2), (3). Unlike Rule 59(e), Rule 60(b) “is an extraordinary remedy and is granted only in exceptional circumstances.” Karraker v. Rent–A–Center, Inc., 411 F.3d 831, 837 (7th Cir.2005) (quoting Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Flanders Elec. Motor Serv., Inc., 131 F.3d 625, 628 (7th Cir.1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relief under Rule 60(b)is limited to the “particular circumstances listed in the text of the rule.” Russell v. Delco Remy Div. of Gen. Motors Corp., 51 F.3d 746, 749 (7th Cir.1995) (internal citation omitted). The Rule was designed to address mistakes attributable to special circumstances, not to address erroneous applications of law. Id. The resolution of a Rule 60(b) motion is committed to the sound discretion of this Court, and its ruling is reviewed only for an abuse of that discretion, which is shown when no reasonable person could agree with the Court's ruling. Eskridge v. Cook Cnty., 577 F.3d 806, 809 (7th Cir.2009).

Under Rule 59(e), a district court may entertain “[a] motion to alter or amend a judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). Motions for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) are utilized for a very limited purpose: to correct manifest errors of law or fact, to present newly discovered evidence, or where there has been an intervening and substantial change in the controlling law since the submission of the issues to the district court. Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., Inc., 194 F.3d 845, 848 (7th Cir.1999) (citing Moro v. Shell Oil Co., 91 F.3d 872, 876 (7th Cir.1996)). Motions to reconsider sounding under Rule 59(e) should only be granted in rare circumstances. Bank of Waunakee v. Rochester Cheese Sales, Inc., 906 F.2d 1185, 1191 (7th Cir.1990) (quoting Above the Belt, Inc. v. Mel Bohannan Roofing, Inc., 99 F.R.D. 99, 101 (E.D.Va.1983) (“[T]he motion to reconsider should be equally rare.”)). A party moving for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) bears a heavy burden of establishing that the court should reverse its prior judgment. See Caisse Nationale de Credit Agricole v. CBI Indus., Inc., 90 F.3d 1264, 1270 (7th Cir.1996). A Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration is not an appropriate vehicle for relitigating arguments that the district court previously rejected, or for arguing issues or presenting evidence that could have been raised during the pendency of the motion presently under reconsideration. Id.;Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506, 512 (7th Cir.2007).

A manifest error of law is the “disregard, misapplication, or failure to recognize controlling precedent.” Oto v. Metropolitan Life Ins., 224 F.3d 601, 606 (7th Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted). “A ‘manifest error’ is not demonstrated by the disappointment of the losing party.” Id. The decision to grant a Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider lies in the sound discretion of this Court, and its ruling will only by disturbed upon a showing that the Court abused that discretion. Matter of Prince, 85 F.3d 314, 324 (7th Cir.1996); Billups v....